[Mr. Zipper]

Here is my 2 cents…

I didn't like the Mantle for the following reasons. The “ic” has an odd slant; the right side of the M in Mantle is flared out. You see that in authentic examples on occasion, but far more often on fakes. I hate the pinched, open “a,” and the “n” looks clumsy and carefully applied. Lastly, the placement is sloppy and not nicely spaced and centered as he usually did. That's five red flags.

That said, there are some subtle positive attributes as well. Nice speed through the Ms, and a few other very subtle things I like to see, but don’t put on public chat boards.

Chris has studied Mantle far longer than me and I have a great deal of respect for his “eye.” The “eye” picks up on the “rhythm and feel” and goes beyond technical analysis. Sometimes this is what is needed to identify atypical but authentic examples. (Or examples that look great superficially, but look “off” for reasons hard to explain.)

My specialty is space and I have studied Neil Armstrong autographs for 20 years. After viewing thousands of them over time, I have seen sloppy train wrecks that fail on a technical basis, but I knew they were authentic because of very subtle cues that were hard to explain. Conversely, examples that 98% of dealers and collectors would think were fine, I knew they were very skilled fakes because they looked a tiny bit “off.” Trying to explain why is like the parents of identical twins trying to explain to others how they can tell them apart… but they always do.

Getting back to the Mantle, I trust Chris and his experience. However, assuming it is authentic, it is an example I would never want in my collection. Why pick an example that people could reasonably question when there are so many undoubtedly good examples available?